Plagiarism

As a new student in Central Michigan University's Educational Technology program, I approached the first assignment with a mixture of excitement, anticipation, and -- to be honest -- a bit of trepidation. As a librarian at CMU, I am very familiar with the reality that plagiarism is a growing concern on most college campuses today. But aside from assisting students with APA style questions, I had no previous experience using educational technology tools such as SafeAssign to detect plagiarized content. So the question of whether or not an essay made up of 90% plagiarized content could "trick" SafeAssign by assigning a score less than 90% was intriguing.  

Although multiple submissions were allowed in order to reach a score below 90%, I was pleasantly surprised to find that my essay -- which contained the required 90% of plagiarized content -- yielded a score of 44%. Perfect! No need to resubmit my essay and wait for a new score. But the implications of this score quickly began to take on new meaning. My score wasn't perfect at all. Far from it. Much to my surprise, nearly half of my plagiarized content was undetected by SafeAssign!

The SafeAssign report revealed a total of seven suspected sources, including an international newspaper, a university's web page, three different blogs, and another student’s paper. Although I obtained none of my plagiarized content from any of these secondary sources, nearly all seven suspected sources referenced the same primary source. Which begs the question: which source should be cited? It's not always easy to tell.

When considering this dilemma, I was reminded of a student who called the library to get help in understanding the concept of plagiarism. But instead of insisting that “everything belongs to everybody” (Fish, 2010, para. 11), he couldn’t grasp why he shouldn’t cite his entire paper. Because not even the ideas were his own. Unfortunately, as concerned as this student was, he seems to be the exception.

As I pondered how easy it was to cut and paste blocks of text to "create" an essay, I began to give more credence to what seemed at first like an oversimplified statement by Gabriel (2010), "Digital technology makes copying and pasting easy…But that is the least of it. The Internet may also be redefining how students...understand the concept of authorship and the singularity of any text or image" (Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age, para. 7). But he might be onto something. If students' understanding of authorship is changing, then too must their understanding of how their work is assessed. 

SafeAssign might not be fool-proof as evidenced by the fact it was "tricked" when 46% of my plagiarized content went undetected. But maybe that's not the point. Perhaps if students were made aware tools like SafeAssign, they might be persuaded to think twice about the importance of citing their sources.

Fortunately, for the librarians at CMU's Off-Campus Library Services, the number of APA style questions is increasing. Suggesting that even though students don't always know how to properly format a citation, at least they are aware of the fact that a citation is needed. Let's hope the trend continues!


Brownrigg, K. (2010, May 24). Plagiarism and the Web: A Blunt Look at How the 'Net Redefines Ethics. Herald de Paris. Retrieved from http://www.heralddeparis.com/plagiarism-and-the-web-a-blunt-look-at-how-the-internet-redefines-ethics/89940

Fish, S. (2010, August 9). Plagiarism Is Not a Big Moral Deal. Exclusive Online Commentary From The Times. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/plagiarism-is-not-a-big-moral-deal/

Gabriel, T. (2010, August 1). Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html

*****